Download before the - Maryland Public Service Commission

BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
)
In the Matter of the Investigation of Non-Recurring )
Charges for Telecommunications Interconnection )
Services
)
)
In the Matter of the Investigation into Recurring
)
Rates for Unbundled Network Elements Pursuant )
To the Telecommunications Act of 1996
)
)
Case No. 8879
OPPOSITION OF WORLDCOM, INC. TO VERIZON’S EMERGENCY MOTION
TO MODIFY PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
I.
INTRODUCTION.
WorldCom, Inc. (“WorldCom”), by its attorney, hereby opposes Verizon
Maryland Inc.’s (“Verizon”) Emergency Motion to Modify Procedural Schedule
(“Motion”) and request for additional time to prepare cost studies, supporting
documentation and testimony requested by the Public Service Commission of Maryland
(“Commission”) in Case No. 8879. Verizon’s Motion to extend the deadline to file the
requested cost studies, underlying cost documentation, and supporting testimony in Case
No. 8879 should be denied. Based on the substance of Verizon’s Motion, this is clearly
just another delay tactic by Verizon.
Verizon states that it seeks to extend the deadline to file UNE rate element cost
studies and underlying cost documentation for two reasons. First, Verizon states that the
Commission’s Order in Case No. 8842 (Line Sharing Case) affects the cost studies in
8879 in two respects: 1) the 8842 Order establishes certain parameters and filing
requirements for future cost study submissions; and, 2) the 8842 Order made all of the
line sharing rate elements interim, and required Verizon to submit updated cost studies in
this proceeding. Second, Verizon states that “given the fact that there are three
Commissioners who have never before heard an Unbundled Network Element
proceeding,” it proposes to hold an informational workshop for the Commission on May
7, 2001, to provide the Commission with explanatory information concerning the cost
study methodology.
II.
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE SPLITTER ELEMENT,
THE COMMISSION’S 8842 ORDER IMPOSES NO NEW COST STUDY
REQUIREMENTS THAT VERIZON CANNOT MEET BY APRIL 30,
2001.
Verizon states that the Commission enunciated new, additional requirements in
the 8842 Order, which prevent Verizon from meeting the existing April 30, 2001
deadline. WorldCom disagrees. In the 8842 Order, the Commission enunciated general
principles that have applied for some time to all cost study submissions in Maryland,
including that the cost study be based on Maryland-specific information, contain detailed
testimony, etc. The only Commission requirement contained in the 8842 Order that
could possibly impact Verizon’s ability to file pursuant to the current 8879 deadline is the
inclusion of the splitter element in the cost studies. With the possible exception of the
splitter element, there is nothing new or dramatic in the 8842 Order that should require
Verizon to need more time. In Pennsylvania, Verizon has filed cost studies relative to
DSL issues, so even this is nothing entirely new to Verizon. Given that, Verizon should
be deemed to have had sufficient time between the date of the 8842 Order and the 8879
2
deadline to file the additional cost information pertaining to the splitter element. Verizon
has had sufficient time to prepare the requested cost studies and testimony on the splitter
issue. Notwithstanding, WorldCom would not object if Verizon is allowed more time to
file testimony and cost studies relative solely to the splitter element.
III.
THE INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP SHOULD TAKE PLACE ONLY
AFTER ALL VERIZON COST STUDIES AND TESTIMONY HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED, AND ALL PARTIES SHOULD BE INVITED AND
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE.
Verizon states that the Informational Workshop will “provide the Commissioners
with a full understanding of Verizon’s underlying cost methodology, how Verizon’s
network relates to the UNEs it must provide to CLECs, and how Verizon develops costs
for those UNEs.” WorldCom believes an informational session or data conference is a
good thing if properly done. However, WorldCom sees no value in such a conference if
it is held prior to the filing of Verizon’s cost studies, supporting documentation and
testimony in 8879. Indeed, holding such a “workshop” prior to the filing of the studies
would be less than useful since parties would not be prepared to ask specific questions
(and, therefore, the “workshop” would be little more than a Verizon road show). To that
end, WorldCom supports Verizon’s request to hold an informational workshop/data
conference for the Commission and the parties IF it is held after Verizon has filed
pursuant to the current deadline in 8879. WorldCom posits that a conference held after
the submission of Verizon’s cost studies would give the Commission, Staff, and the
parties an ideal opportunity to address real Maryland issues relative to the real Marylandspecific cost studies. It would also be our opportunity to eliminate a lot of needless
3
discovery, provided Verizon is prepared to respond to questions. In WorldCom’s
opinion, to hold the informational session prior to the submission of cost studies and
testimony would be a waste of time and resources; to hold the sessions after the
submission would actually save time and resources.
On or about March 15, 2001, Verizon’s sister company, Verizon Washington DC
Inc. (“Verizon DC”), offered and held a similar data conference in the District of
Columbia in connection with that jurisdiction’s UNE rate case. Cost studies in the DC
proceeding were filed at the end of January, 2001. Like Verizon (Maryland) seeks to do
in this Motion, Verizon DC desired to restrict the issues addressed and questions raised at
that data conference, stating in effect that the meeting should not be allowed to take the
place of discovery. As a result, the meeting resulted in little getting accomplished. In
order to rectify that result, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia
(“DC Commission”) recently issued an order requiring Verizon DC to appear at two
additional data conferences (one for Commission Staff, one for the parties) in connection
with the District’s UNE rate case.1 In that Order, the DC Commission specifically
required Verizon DC to be prepared to respond to questions regarding the entire cost
study (that had been previously filed in January), including retail and wholesale recurring
and non-recurring costs.2 Only in that way, the DC Commission recognized, would staff
and the parties have an opportunity to address issues in a substantive manner. While the
1
See Formal Case No. 962, In the Matter of the Implementation of the District of Columbia
Telecommunications Competition Act of 1996 and Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Order No. 11960 rel. March 30, 2001.
2
On April 6, 2001, Verizon DC filed a motion for clarification of Order No. 11960. The DC Commission
has not yet issued its clarifying order.
4
DC Commission ultimately got it right on its second bite of the apple, this Commission
can do so on the first.
CONCLUSION
As WorldCom has consistently argued, the fact that Verizon has not devoted the
resources to develop requested cost studies and testimony should not become the problem
of Maryland competitors or consumers, who deserve to reap the benefits of local
competition that will come once appropriate UNE and NRC rates are established. Local
competition in Maryland will continue to be nonexistent and thwarted should Verizon’s
delay tactics be granted. Contrary to representations made in Verizon’s Motion, the
Commission has not ordered Verizon in 8842 to do anything that would justify an
extension of the schedule in 8879. Finally, WorldCom supports the idea of a data
conference/informational workshop only if it is scheduled after the timely submission of
Verizon’s cost studies, supporting documentation and testimony pursuant to the
Commission’s current procedural schedule in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Marc J. Williams
WorldCom, Inc.
1133 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
April 17, 2001
5